Project Description
Objectives
The purpose of this project is to understand teachers’ use of Information
Communication Technologies (ICTs) to enhance literacy learning across disciplines. For
this study, I will replicate an award-winning research study I conducted in the U.S.
(Stolle, 2008), investigating: (1) How do Swedish teachers across the disciplines
conceptualize the impact ICTs have on literacy learning?; and (2) What is the relationship
between Swedish teachers conceptualizations and their use of ICTs in their everyday
pedagogical practices to enhance literacy learning across the disciplines? I will compare
teachers’ conceptualizations and pedagogical practices, noting similarities, differences,
complexities, tensions, etc.
Background and Context
Context. In both the U.S. and Sweden, national learning standards guide
instruction, but it is up to school leaders and teachers to decide what resources and
methods should be used to meet these standards (Thullberg, 2007; Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2010). In the classroom, it is the teacher who decides when to use
and how to use Information and Communication Technologies in the curriculum. For
example, an 8th grade English language arts (ELA) teacher in the U.S. uses the Lifelong
Learner Project to teach one of the ELA Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with
concepts such as asking essential questions and writing/communicating with analytical
skills (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.8.7). Using iPads, this teacher engages her students in
research, asking them to document their learning process through text and visuals, thus
apprenticing students into the ELA discipline through the use of an ICT. In this, both the
teacher’s conceptualizations of and intentions to use ICTs are critical to the success of the
implementation of ICTs (Ma, Anderson, & Streith, 2005)—verklig kunskap visar sig i
görandet (true knowing is seen in the doing). Despite decades of research investigating
new literacy skills and pedagogical knowledge demanded by ICTs, which impact student
learning (Anderson, 1987; 2001; Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008; KarchmerKlein & Shinas, 2012; Pelgrum & Anderson, 1999), teachers often struggle to implement
their conceptualizations of ICTs in their pedagogical practices because of their: (1)
inability to envision beyond what they already know and do, (2) limited knowledge of
ICTs, and (3) fears/ insecurities about using ICTs (Stolle, 2008). Hutchison and Reinking
(2011) confirm this, uncovering that teachers in the U.S. still struggle with a robust
conceptualization of ICT integration in literacy instruction, thus limiting their abilities to
use ICTs to enhance and authenticate literacy learning.
In 2003, Rasinen highlighted the technology education programs of six nations,
including the U.S. and Sweden, because they have developed rapidly with profound
research, experimental programs, and the development of learning materials. With this in
mind, the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 recently ranked Sweden as the leading
country for innovation in Europe (European Commission, 2010). Additionally, the Global
Information Technology Report 2010–2011 ranked Sweden the best country in the world
in adopting and implementing ICT advances for increased growth and development
across three entities— governments, businesses, and consumers—and the U.S. ranked
fifth (Dutta & Mia, 2011). The assumption is that the growth and development across
these entities will translate into the classroom with how teachers use ICTs to enhance
literacy instruction in schools. Although research tells us translation isn’t necessarily the
case (Cuban, 2013), my project seeks to understand how teachers in Sweden, within this
innovation-mindset environment, both conceptualize the use of ICTs to enhance literacy
learning and integrate ICTs into their pedagogical practices, while also empowering
teachers with comprehensive and integrated approaches for using ICT tools to support
student learning.
ICTs & Literacy. The International Literacy Association (formerly known as the
International Reading Association) (IRA, 2009), a professional literacy organization
active in both the U.S. and Sweden, issued a position statement asserting:
To become fully literate in today’s world, students must become proficient in the
new literacies of 21st-century technologies. IRA believes that literacy educators
have a responsibility to integrate information and communication technologies
(ICTs) into the curriculum, to prepare students for the futures they deserve. (n.p.)
The importance of literacy permeates all disciplines as teachers “mentor (students) to
read, write, and think in ways that are characteristic of discrete academic disciplines”
(Buehl 2011, p. 10). That is, disciplinary literacies require students to read and write in
specialized ways for specialized purposes determined by the discipline (Moje, 2008;
Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008), thus integrating digital technologies into literacy
instruction across the disciplines and equipping students with the new literacy skills
needed for reading, writing, and communicating in digital environments should be a
priority for all teachers.
Both the United States and Sweden have been under the microscope since the
2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2014) scores were
published, undergoing scrutiny from all angles, investigating why literacy test scores
have not improved, and in some cases, have declined. A need exists for advanced reading
skills across disciplines. That is, “most students need explicit teaching of sophisticated
genres, specialized language conventions, disciplinary norms of precision, and accuracy,
and higher-level interpretive processes” (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, p. 43).
Additionally, the need for teacher educators to prepare K–12 teachers with new literacies
still exists, and discussions continue on how best to attain this goal (Cuban, 2013; Martin
& Dismuke, 2014; Rosaen & Terpstra, 2012). An assumption exists that “increasing
access to computers in schools will lead to more classroom use which, in turn, will
transform teaching and learning to produce the desired outcomes in graduates and the
economy” (Cuban, 2001, p. 34). However, a number of studies have found no
fundamental change in learning or teaching practices occurred with an increase in access
to technology (Leander, 2007; Bruce & Rubin, 1993; Miller & Olson, 1994).
Theoretical framework. The theoretical frame that guides this sabbatical draws
from the theories linking literacy, technology, and learning. First, technology and literacy
have a transactional relationship (Karchmer et al, 2005; Leu et al., 2004). That is, new
technologies continually shape and reshape an individual’s literacy practices. In turn,
new envisionments of literacy continually shape and reshape technologies. Next, with the
increase in ICTs, existing social practices transform while new social practices emerge
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). This concept acknowledges Street’s (1984, 2005) notions
that engaging in literacy is a social act and builds on his notions of literacy as a social
practice. Third, literacy does not hold transparent, static meanings, but rather meaning is
fluid and dependent on the reader’s use of a given literacy for a specified purpose
(Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Hagood, 2003). This concept does not simply
address how literacy impacts individuals, but rather how individuals acquire, understand,
and use literacy. Admitting this fluidity acknowledges that multiple perspectives of
reality exist (Labbo & Reinking, 1999).
Methods/Procedures/Materials
Research. The research project within this sabbatical investigates: (1) How do
teachers across the disciplines conceptualize the impact ICTs have on literacy learning?;
and (2) What is the relationship between teachers’ conceptualizations and their use of
ICTs in their everyday pedagogical practices to enhance literacy learning across the
disciplines?
Data Collection. This study will include sixteen Swedish teachers, both male and
female with varying years of professional experience and teaching assignments. The
teachers will be divided into two categories: (a) primary participants and (b) secondary
participants. Four teachers will become the primary participants, and I will observe each
teacher for a total of 25 to 30 hours using Werner and Schoepfle’s (1987) systematic
approach, which progresses through three types of observations— descriptive, focused,
and selective—to gain a complete picture of the setting. I will video record these
observations with the intent of using these video recordings to guide discussion during
the interviews. That is, I will conduct 3 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with each
primary participant, using an interactive, situational, and generative approach by posing
open-ended questions (see Possible Interview Questions) that initiate dialogue (Burgess,
1984; Fontana & Frey, 2000). As ideas and stories emerge from the teachers’ responses, I
will ask further questions, helping teachers elaborate, explore, and describe their
conceptualizations and pedagogical practices around ICTs and literacy. I will also use
video elicitation (Henry & Fetters, 2012), which integrates data about teachers’
pedagogical practices, gained through video recorded classroom observations, with data
about teachers’ conceptualizations gained through interviews. The concrete examples of
each teacher’s practice captured on video will provide rich content for discussion during
the interviews. I will audio-record and transcribe these interviews for analysis.
I will conduct focus group interviews with the other twelve teachers, my
secondary participants, to encourage group interactions and the social construction of
meaning (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). I will use a structured approach (Morgan, 1997)
that incorporates the four broad criteria from Merton, Kendall, and Gollin (1990): (1)
range—discussing a range of topics related to the research issues; (2) specificity—
seeking detailed accounts of the teachers’ experiences and perceptions; (3) depth—
inquiring about the teachers’ personal experiences; and (4) personal context—
acknowledging that individuals have different perspectives, or multiple interpretations
(see Possible Interview Questions). I will audio-record and transcribe these interviews for
analysis. Lastly, I will keep a researcher’s journal throughout the research project
(Richardson, 2000), providing space to explore the relationship between the three data
sources and how the themes and ideas noted during in-depth interviews and classroom
observations corroborate with the focus group interviews. Richardson (2000) suggests
using the researcher’s journal to memo in four categories: (1) observation notes (concrete
details of what a researcher sees and hears); (2) methodological notes (memos to help the
researcher see the journey he/she takes while engaging in a research study); (3)
theoretical notes (space to connect what he/she is seeing and hearing with what he/she is
reading professionally); and (4) personal notes (the researcher’s raw feelings and
emotions experienced in the research process.
Data Analysis. Although I will analyze the data as an ongoing procedure during
data collection, the bulk of the analysis will occur after I complete the interviews and
classroom observations. In the initial analysis phase, I will spend time with the data using
Miles and Huberman’s (1994) qualitative analysis tools. Additionally, I will write,
valuing Richardson’s (2000, p. 293) words that writing is a “way of knowing.” Through
writing as a method of inquiry, the interplay between the data sources will allow me to
see the findings in complex ways as I seek to answer my research questions.